I don't think the 10% discount is worth it when the digital games prices are astronomical. It's just a carrot being held by a laughing EA boss, here have a few quid back while we take about 30% more by digital default.

Does nobody see the huge slippery slope that was once the DLC slippery slope and a F2P mechanics slippery slope. EA want more than £3.99/£30 a year from some users for old games, they want us all to subscribe to access those great EA servers at all, those pre order bonuses and game perks exclusive to EA Access subscribers. We have some DLC to sell you with these free games. The old games are the hook, they will strip games further back to bare bones, use EA Access to get you in the door then you find out that to get anywhere pay up for DLC and micro transactions. EA are almost F2P their games but charging a subscription to get access to them.

It might seem like a cheap proposition but EA are only making games across the board more expensive with so many layers of revenue, brand new day one or old, frankly every single EA game at this point should be on EA Access for £3.99 and then make profit off the extras, but they want your £40-50 plus £30 season pass for each game first. Reply+3

An interesting perspective is DLC. With the sub being so cheap and old games loaded with DLC, users might feel a greater need to buy that content and as a result not want to stop subscribing as it's no longer a cheap £3.99 a month, £30 a year throwaway. They could be spending quite a lot on top which in a weird way seems silly to give up. EA hook successful. Reply+1

Maybe it's a Microsoft and publisher conspiracy to dilute free games with Gold and Plus subscriptions then replace it with EA Access, Ubisoft Uplay etc. for offering free games and more. Puts the ball firmly in the publisher court and MS can sit back on it's cloud and laugh at not having to offer free games to compete.

Microsoft doesn't want to give more than they have to, you can bet the company directive is not how do we compete with Playstation Plus but how do we kill it, step 1 - EA Access, step 2 - Other publishers follow. Watch Microsoft worm their way out of free games asap. Reply-1

I think we should remember what happens when EA get their way over a platform holder. Original Xbox and Xbox Live. EA servers and EA/Origin account.

You can argue we should wait and see what happens but it's very hard to give EA that right. What I imagine will likely happen.

All demos, betas in the future will require EA Access.
Bonuses Content and perks will come to EA Access rather more so than pre orders.
Online Premium service features will soon require EA Access like dedicated server priority, customizing, maybe even online play at some point.
DLC First with EA All Access.

It's just one big slippery slope to having an EA sub to play anything but the bare bones. They have EA Access then piled on top is DLC, micro transactions. A dream come true. The last piece is probably an EA console or streaming service so it all belongs to them. Reply+6

It falls a bit too close to media apps behind gold idiocy. Unless they are using Azure servers, seems like another stupid toll because Microsoft can. You don't hook people into F2P games by asking them to pay for Xbox Live Gold first. Reply-1

Co-develop with other studios on a case by case basis is all they needed to do for content worth doing. Everyone and their dog is doing content services, just be the home for all those services and sprinkle some homemade content on top like Halo, you can't lose. Reply+22

Your deluded if you don't think the grind is being manipulated for the purpose of making money from those boosters. That's why they are shit and not a play it normally choice. The XP curve is wrong to begin with. Reply+8

If only Microsoft told EA to piss off years ago and the rest of the publishers that like adding their own stuff. Hindrance should not be a selling point. Games are rentals now and should be treated as low value since there are pretty worthless in the end. Reply+4

It was pretty obvious to everyone Kinect 1.0 had its' day long before Xbox One and normal TV consumption was on the wayside while streaming services are what consumers were buying into. With Xbox 360 they had the best collection of streaming services outside of a PC or iPad. Gold paywall aside, streaming service ubiquity was there for the taking if they continued down that path with Xbox One instead of HDMI passthrough which is just a tweaked Microsoft TV dream from more than 10 years ago that just won't happen. It's just a pity the hardware had to suffer.

To even fail to understand that core gamers buy your hardware first and that the masses would buy into Xbox Live Gold to watch free or already paid for services and plug in there cable/satellite box for the privilege of a TV guide. Complete ignorance. I'm glad they have been forced to change but whether they still believe they were right and the message was wrong and will try again, who knows. I hope not. The Microsoft bubble needs popped so they view their strategy from an outside perspective, I'm sure in Microsoft land, it all looked great, yes this is amazing don't you agree but we don't all live in Microsoft land. Reply+13

Researchers from the University of Washington (UW) and Microsoft Research Connections (MRC) are working together to develop a non-invasive, technological solution that promises to improve both the health and overall quality of life for diabetics: a contact lens that monitors blood glucose levels.

Microsoft will need to come up with a Netflix service or something. Buying content individually isn't really what consumers are flocking to now. I don't think Microsoft could ask people to sign up to another subscription on top of Xbox Live Gold and I doubt they want to offer this stuff free to Gold subscribers without a price hike. Reply+1